Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Dānu]

Actually it's not a silly question because--and this is important--the moment you say my belief is irrational (which is based on the list below), you have LOST the debate. I show an inductive argument on how I arrive at the belief. Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given. You cannot prove any of these premises are false--let alone all of them. The moment you played the game, you lost. To succeed in your 'irrational' claim, you would have to prove the concept of God irrational--something no one has ever been able to do.

The presence of an inductive argument on its own does not demonstrate the rationality of a conclusion as the rationality of any conclusion is adjudged by the totality of the evidence.  If you have an inductive argument as to the truth of a thing, yet are aware of, or there exists, inductive arguments of greater strength which put that conclusion in doubt, then your belief is irrational.  You appear to be suggesting that the existence of evidence--any evidence--makes the position rational.  It does not.  And no, one does not need to prove that the concept of God is irrational to show that your conclusion is irrational.  That's a false claim.  Proof against God is unnecessary if one has evidence against your induction.

[Dānu]

I just figured out the problem. Your rebuttal to my historical evidence is scientific evidence. It does not follow that then I have to have scientific evidence--because central to the claims of the NT is the existence of the supernatural--which--by definition--is not scientific nor open to scientific examination. Demanding scientific evidence is a category error.

Speaking of circular, you cannot assume the existence of the supernatural to guard the miracles of the bible as the miracles of the bible, and any other miracles you bring to the table, are being put forward as evidence for the very supernatural things you have assumed might exist.  That's simple question begging.  Interestingly enough, on another forum, we have had a discussion as to whether science can testify to the supernatural.  I've argued with you on the point that if empirical evidence cannot establish supernatural conclusion, then you're shit outta luck, because that's all that you really can appeal to there.  Whether the supernatural can be studied by science is an open question, and this is not necessarily a category error.  But more broadly speaking, when people speak of scientific evidence, they mean things that can be established by way of empirical facts.  First, it seems that this is exactly what you are doing with your inductive argument, and so you would be hoist on your own petard.  And second, I don't see that your claimed privileged status of the supernatural is necessarily true.  Prove to me that anything--anything at all--is an effect of nature and not of supernatural causes.  I look forward to your proof.

[unfogged]

Prove to me that anything--anything at all--is an effect of nature and not of supernatural causes.  I look forward to your proof.

For second I thought you had that backwards but it's an excellent point. Once you essentially accept magic as a possible explanation for things then you are unable to ever determine whether a cause is natural or supernatural. It also means that you are never left without an apparent explanation since magic explains anything.

[Dānu]

But I do have good reasons to accept Paul's word. I find the entire NT content and message compelling (subjective). I find that it accurately describes man's condition and the prescription for that condition is effective.

This is an unbelievably weak inference.  You find the message compelling likely because you believe the message, which would make your appeal here rather circular.  There is no way to show that the message is in any sense qualitatively superior to any other observations on human nature such as the Analects of Confucius or the Tao Te Ching of Laozi.  This is an argument that is little more than the plea of the adulating fan.  The Muslims make similar arguments about the Quran, yet I suspect you don't swallow those whole, either.  "Oh my word, Justin Bieber is absolutely the best!" does not lead to the conclusion that Justin Bieber is God, supernatural, or any of the other things you seem to be claiming based on this.  It's horseshit.

For what it's worth, I read the Tao Te Ching cover to cover in one night at the age of 17 and converted at once because of the stunningly accurate message about my human experience that it contained.  Would you then accept that the 17 year old me had evidence that the Tao Te Ching cannot have a natural and mundane origin?

[Bucky Ball]

But I do have good reasons to accept Paul's word. I find the entire NT content and message compelling (subjective). I find that it accurately describes man's condition and the prescription for that condition is effective. 

There is no evidence that the "prescription" is effective. None.
Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, so if there is a description of the human condition, it would be the one he learned as a Pharisaic Jew. 
Jesus was a Jew who said "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
In case you hadn't noticed, heaven and earth have not passed. But as many people think, Paul takes precedence as he is the founder of Paulianity. 

Matthew 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."
Very simple. Nothing unique about Christianity. .... oh never mind .... he practices Paulianity, not Christianity.

[Dānu]

The supernatural cannot "be tested or verified" but it can be demonstrated by observing its effects within the proper context that increases the probability that the supernatural in involved. This is logically airtight inductive process. You can deny that I have no such reliable examples--you cannot deny that it can be done.

The bolded bit is pretty much the definition of an oxymoron.  If it's logically airtight, it's not inductive.  If it's inductive, it's not logically airtight.

[SteveII]

Actually it's not a silly question because--and this is important--the moment you say my belief is irrational (which is based on the list below), you have LOST the debate. I show an inductive argument on how I arrive at the belief. Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given. You cannot prove any of these premises are false--let alone all of them. The moment you played the game, you lost. To succeed in your 'irrational' claim, you would have to prove the concept of God irrational--something no one has ever been able to do.

The presence of an inductive argument on its own does not demonstrate the rationality of a conclusion as the rationality of any conclusion is adjudged by the totality of the evidence.  If you have an inductive argument as to the truth of a thing, yet are aware of, or there exists, inductive arguments of greater strength which put that conclusion in doubt, then your belief is irrational.  You appear to be suggesting that the existence of evidence--any evidence--makes the position rational.  It does not.  And no, one does not need to prove that the concept of God is irrational to show that your conclusion is irrational.  That's a false claim.  Proof against God is unnecessary if one has evidence against your induction.

I'm genuinely happy to hear from you. I missed our exchanges the most.

I see your point, I may have gone a little further than I had a warrant for. I believe my argument has multiple pieces of different types of evidence that, while not conclusive, form a interconnected narrative that no one has enough counter-evidence to call irrational. My point about proving the notion of God irrational seems to be the only route--practically speaking.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

I must admit I am having a hard time segregating historical jesus from bilical jesus.
not sure what data provides the segregation.
is it simply a semantic difference?

Here's an idea.

Historical jesus (aka a person) may have existed, however we can be pretty damn confident he wasn't walking on water (unless he was using a trick), thus the bible references can't really be about him (while remaining accurate)

Thus there's a split. There's what we can reasonably expect a person from a real person named Jesus, and what the bible wants to go on about which sounds a hell of a lot like Hercules, and other myths. There may have been a person named Hercules, he was not the son of Zeus and he did not perform the actions attributed to him. Thus if someone wanted to claim he really existed we'd have a similar conflict, potentially. Only difference is no one is asserting what is quite obviously myth is somehow true in the case of Hercules.

I understand the mystery of concocting a historical jesus, how is that not exactly what biblical jesus is?

[JesseB]

I must admit I am having a hard time segregating historical jesus from bilical jesus.
not sure what data provides the segregation.
is it simply a semantic difference?

Here's an idea.

Historical jesus (aka a person) may have existed, however we can be pretty damn confident he wasn't walking on water (unless he was using a trick), thus the bible references can't really be about him (while remaining accurate)

Thus there's a split. There's what we can reasonably expect a person from a real person named Jesus, and what the bible wants to go on about which sounds a hell of a lot like Hercules, and other myths. There may have been a person named Hercules, he was not the son of Zeus and he did not perform the actions attributed to him. Thus if someone wanted to claim he really existed we'd have a similar conflict, potentially. Only difference is no one is asserting what is quite obviously myth is somehow true in the case of Hercules.

I understand the mystery of concocting a historical jesus, how is that not exactly what biblical jesus is?

Do you think anyone ever walked on water? There's your answer.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

Here's an idea.

Historical jesus (aka a person) may have existed, however we can be pretty damn confident he wasn't walking on water (unless he was using a trick), thus the bible references can't really be about him (while remaining accurate)

Thus there's a split. There's what we can reasonably expect a person from a real person named Jesus, and what the bible wants to go on about which sounds a hell of a lot like Hercules, and other myths. There may have been a person named Hercules, he was not the son of Zeus and he did not perform the actions attributed to him. Thus if someone wanted to claim he really existed we'd have a similar conflict, potentially. Only difference is no one is asserting what is quite obviously myth is somehow true in the case of Hercules.

I understand the mystery of concocting a historical jesus, how is that not exactly what biblical jesus is?

Do you think anyone ever walked on water? There's your answer.

not really, because I understand there must be some verisimilitude for historical Jesus when you say something like what you just did
what is the source of the historical Jesus ? the narrative

[JesseB]

I understand the mystery of concocting a historical jesus, how is that not exactly what biblical jesus is?

Do you think anyone ever walked on water? There's your answer.

not really, because I understand there must be some verisimilitude for historical Jesus when you say something like what you just did
what is the source of the historical Jesus ? the narrative

The source? Well I think there is no such person. However the traditional source of the "historical" Jesus is the mythicized Jesus exists (in texts aka the bible), and the default position from a historian position (or so I'm told since I'm not a historian) is that if someone is claimed to exist accept the claim unless it's obviously false, or demonstrably false. Which to me seems backwards but again I'm not a historian.

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

[JesseB]

Actually it's not a silly question because--and this is important--the moment you say my belief is irrational (which is based on the list below), you have LOST the debate. I show an inductive argument on how I arrive at the belief. Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given. You cannot prove any of these premises are false--let alone all of them. The moment you played the game, you lost. To succeed in your 'irrational' claim, you would have to prove the concept of God irrational--something no one has ever been able to do.

The presence of an inductive argument on its own does not demonstrate the rationality of a conclusion as the rationality of any conclusion is adjudged by the totality of the evidence.  If you have an inductive argument as to the truth of a thing, yet are aware of, or there exists, inductive arguments of greater strength which put that conclusion in doubt, then your belief is irrational.  You appear to be suggesting that the existence of evidence--any evidence--makes the position rational.  It does not.  And no, one does not need to prove that the concept of God is irrational to show that your conclusion is irrational.  That's a false claim.  Proof against God is unnecessary if one has evidence against your induction.

I like you already. Glad to meet you.

[Bucky Ball]

Do you think anyone ever walked on water? There's your answer.

not really, because I understand there must be some verisimilitude for historical Jesus when you say something like what you just did
what is the source of the historical Jesus ? the narrative

The source? Well I think there is no such person. However the traditional source of the "historical" Jesus is the mythicized Jesus exists (in texts aka the bible), and the default position from a historian position (or so I'm told since I'm not a historian) is that if someone is claimed to exist accept the claim unless it's obviously false, or demonstrably false. Which to me seems backwards but again I'm not a historian.

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

What is the source for ANY myth ?

[JesseB]

not really, because I understand there must be some verisimilitude for historical Jesus when you say something like what you just did
what is the source of the historical Jesus ? the narrative

The source? Well I think there is no such person. However the traditional source of the "historical" Jesus is the mythicized Jesus exists (in texts aka the bible), and the default position from a historian position (or so I'm told since I'm not a historian) is that if someone is claimed to exist accept the claim unless it's obviously false, or demonstrably false. Which to me seems backwards but again I'm not a historian.

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

What is the source for ANY myth ?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking to be honest, apologies. I'm gonna answer what I think you might be asking. With regards to the Jesus story, there's a lot of myths and religious stuff that could easily be twisted and used as the basis for the specific myth. There's a lot of reasons why people would do this given the um.... stresses? applied to them at the time what with Roman occupation.

Now for me the possibility of a Jesus vs no Jesus as an actual person is prolly about 50/50, I pick no because of the specific lack of any evidence despite claims of census (that never happened, and we know it didn't and the circumstances surrounding the census aren't even reasonable, Rome did not make people travel to their hometown for a census, like the entire thing is just ridiculous) and other stuff. But I don't see any way to definitively say one way or another and am open about that.

As for how myths generally form (aka any myth), I think there's a few ways. Mostly it's just storytelling though, a long game of telephone with a story. This could be based at some level on real events, or just some shit someone made up for fun that kept getting retold and twisted until it's nothing like the original. For further reading on the topic however.
https://faculty.gcsu.edu/custom-website/...efmyth.htm


This suffice?

[Bucky Ball]

The source? Well I think there is no such person. However the traditional source of the "historical" Jesus is the mythicized Jesus exists (in texts aka the bible), and the default position from a historian position (or so I'm told since I'm not a historian) is that if someone is claimed to exist accept the claim unless it's obviously false, or demonstrably false. Which to me seems backwards but again I'm not a historian.

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

What is the source for ANY myth ?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking to be honest, apologies. I'm gonna answer what I think you might be asking. With regards to the Jesus story, there's a lot of myths and religious stuff that could easily be twisted and used as the basis for the specific myth. There's a lot of reasons why people would do this given the um.... stresses? applied to them at the time what with Roman occupation.

Now for me the possibility of a Jesus vs no Jesus as an actual person is prolly about 50/50, I pick no because of the specific lack of any evidence despite claims of census (that never happened, and we know it didn't and the circumstances surrounding the census aren't even reasonable, Rome did not make people travel to their hometown for a census, like the entire thing is just ridiculous) and other stuff. But I don't see any way to definitively say one way or another and am open about that.

As for how myths generally form (aka any myth), I think there's a few ways. Mostly it's just storytelling though, a long game of telephone with a story. This could be based at some level on real events, or just some shit someone made up for fun that kept getting retold and twisted until it's nothing like the original. For further reading on the topic however.
https://faculty.gcsu.edu/custom-website/...efmyth.htm


This suffice?

I screwed up the quotes ... it was a general question for the Outlaw.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

Do you think anyone ever walked on water? There's your answer.

not really, because I understand there must be some verisimilitude for historical Jesus when you say something like what you just did
what is the source of the historical Jesus ? the narrative

The source? Well I think there is no such person. However the traditional source of the "historical" Jesus is the mythicized Jesus exists (in texts aka the bible), and the default position from a historian position (or so I'm told since I'm not a historian) is that if someone is claimed to exist accept the claim unless it's obviously false, or demonstrably false. Which to me seems backwards but again I'm not a historian.

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

what you are describing is Euhemerism

[JesseB]

not really, because I understand there must be some verisimilitude for historical Jesus when you say something like what you just did
what is the source of the historical Jesus ? the narrative

The source? Well I think there is no such person. However the traditional source of the "historical" Jesus is the mythicized Jesus exists (in texts aka the bible), and the default position from a historian position (or so I'm told since I'm not a historian) is that if someone is claimed to exist accept the claim unless it's obviously false, or demonstrably false. Which to me seems backwards but again I'm not a historian.

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

what you are describing is Euhemerism

Your point? Also I described more than one thing in that post, not just Euhemerism. And specifically I don't think there was a real person involved, personally.

[Bucky Ball]

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

I never knew Paul and Hercules had treatment for their bunions . It is a big unknown.

[Chas]

It is the NT that distinguished my reasoning from other religions.

I would like to interject with actual reason: other than "Jesus is love", there is nothing of substance in the NT. Paul does his job of being really crazy, but do we really want him representing the religion?

That which is good in the Bible is not original; that which is original is not good.

[Chas]

not really, because I understand there must be some verisimilitude for historical Jesus when you say something like what you just did
what is the source of the historical Jesus ? the narrative

The source? Well I think there is no such person. However the traditional source of the "historical" Jesus is the mythicized Jesus exists (in texts aka the bible), and the default position from a historian position (or so I'm told since I'm not a historian) is that if someone is claimed to exist accept the claim unless it's obviously false, or demonstrably false. Which to me seems backwards but again I'm not a historian.

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

What is the source for ANY myth ?

Aliens. 

They are also the source of all jokes.

[JesseB]

The source? Well I think there is no such person. However the traditional source of the "historical" Jesus is the mythicized Jesus exists (in texts aka the bible), and the default position from a historian position (or so I'm told since I'm not a historian) is that if someone is claimed to exist accept the claim unless it's obviously false, or demonstrably false. Which to me seems backwards but again I'm not a historian.

Aside from the bible myths there's no evidence a person existed, but it wouldn't be hard for a person with that name to have existed, and then got the paul bunion/ Hercules treatment. It's kinda a big unknown really.

What is the source for ANY myth ?

Aliens. 

They are also the source of all jokes.

[SYZ]

I do care about the strength or weakness of evidence. Just on a macro sense of whether I have justified belief, I don't want to argue about one point and then another.  So what about the 500 eyewitnesses...

"There's an excellent debunking of the absurd "resurrection" and the purported 500 people who allegedly witnessed it HERE."

I will almost always unerringly fail to respond to a link. I don't argue points by proxy.

I'm not arguing by "proxy", whatever that means.  I'm simply supplying a link that's more than a little
relevant to this debate.  If you prefer to avoid even considering opposing points of view, then that
choice will forever cripple your personal knowledge base.  There are none so blind as those who will
not see.

Are you suggesting that we are unjustified in accepting testimony as evidence? Really?

Straw man.  Fail. 

At any rate, testimony is defined as evidence for, or proof of, something.  Paul supplied neither.  He
was only recounting hearsay.     And hearsay is never allowed in a court of law.

The supernatural cannot be tested or verified...

But despite saying that, you nonetheless accept entirely the existence of a supernatural entity?  You
really don't know what you believe in do you LOL.

[JesseB]

"There's an excellent debunking of the absurd "resurrection" and the purported 500 people who allegedly witnessed it HERE."

I will almost always unerringly fail to respond to a link. I don't argue points by proxy.

I'm not arguing by "proxy", whatever that means.  I'm simply supplying a link that's more than a little
relevant to this debate.  If you prefer to avoid even considering opposing points of view, then that
choice will forever cripple your personal knowledge base.  There are none so blind as those who will
not see.

Are you suggesting that we are unjustified in accepting testimony as evidence? Really?

Straw man.  Fail. 

At any rate, testimony is defined as evidence for, or proof of, something.  Paul supplied neither.  He
was only recounting hearsay.     And hearsay is never allowed in a court of law.

The supernatural cannot be tested or verified...

But despite saying that, you nonetheless accept entirely the existence of a supernatural entity?  You
really don't know what you believe in do you LOL.

Pretty damn sure the point is for him to avoid any information that might make him question his belief. Intentionally so. Which explains a lot about his tactics.

After all he blatantly said he learns nothing from his opponents. I may be many things, including a total asshole. But I'm not so ignorant or brainwashed that I would ever make such a claim. I've learned much from my intellectual opponents. Hell I've done the same in real fights too, it's the only reason I'm still alive. It's good to be honest with yourself, and that requires learning even if it's from your enemy. He'd do well to learn that.

[unfogged]

I believe my argument has multiple pieces of different types of evidence that, while not conclusive, form a interconnected narrative that no one has enough counter-evidence to call irrational.

You are still doing it backwards. You can create as intricate and internally consistent web of claims as you like but until you can show that it actually IS the explanation you have nothing but conjecture.

When you start with a belief in a supernatural that can effectively do anything then of course that sounds like a reasonable explanation for anything that you currently have no natural explanation for. It also allows you to accept claims that would otherwise sound highly improbable because nothing is out of the question any more and it becomes self-reinforcing. Belief without evidence poisons your mind and short-circuits critical thinking skills. It is frankly fascinating to see how badly it can trap even intelligent people.

As I said before, you are not being rational, you are rationalizing and it is incredibly sad.

[possibletarian]

Prove to me that anything--anything at all--is an effect of nature and not of supernatural causes.  I look forward to your proof.

For second I thought you had that backwards but it's an excellent point.  Once you essentially accept magic as a possible explanation for things then you are unable to ever determine whether a cause is natural or supernatural.  It also means that you are never left without an apparent explanation since magic explains anything.

Yes i thought that was backwards too, had to read it a few times.
But yes once you intermingle the two seamlessly, you have no way of knowing which is which, therefore the two terms become meaningless.